In 1998, one year after stepping down as Hong Kong governor, Chris Patten published East and West, a chronicle of his experiences in the former British colony. In chapter 2 Patten gives the following description: "... One after another, Chinese officials would accuse me of having broken the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. `How have I done so?' I would respond ....`Well,' they would usually claim somewhat lamely, `you have at least broken the spirit of the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law.' `What do you mean by the spirit? Do you just mean that you disagree with me? Why not then discuss what I have done? Put forward your own proposals.' `We cannot put forward our own proposals until you return to the spirit of the text.' The circles spun and looped; the arguments twisted and turned; the greased pig wriggled about the room; defying capture."
Reading the book is a sobering experience, even four and half years after the handover. One can give a highly accurate description of the cross-strait situation by simply substituting "Joint Declaration and Basic Law" with "1992 consensus" -- the purported agreement that continues to stir up controversy across the Taiwan Strait. The Chinese Communist Party uses the same negotiation tactics against Taiwan, as it did with the British. One has to wonder whether the controversy over whether there was ever a "1992 consensus" is simply part of Beijing's propaganda and psychological warfare -- and a complete waste of time.
If the Chen Shui-bian (
The dispute is simply aimed at misleading the Taiwanese and the international community. Nevertheless, we hear some in the international community, who know little about the "1992 consensus" and yet are too willing to spout off about it.
Recently, a senior US official in Washington DC told a reporter from Taiwan: "Of course, the two sides had a `most basic consensus' before they held the Koo-Wang talks." The remarks came at a sensitive time in Taiwan's election campaign. The pro-unification media in Taiwan magnified the significance of these remarks by giving them extensive coverage. Beneath the headlines, however, one was hard put to find any clue as to the meaning of the so-called consensus. The official did not explain, but the damage was already done.
The motive of Taiwan's pro-unification media was clear: they wanted to use Uncle Sam's words to teach the Chen government a lesson. At the same time, many of Beijing's stooges who are candidates in the elections are using the US official's remarks to attack their rivals.
In fact, we know from the statements of former president Lee Teng-hui (
US officials should take the time to read Patten's book and learn from his Hong Kong experience. The US should neither force Taiwan to the negotiation table nor subject it to humiliation before China removes all of its pre-conditions and begins to interact rationally with Taiwan and the rest of the world. US officials should also be careful about the content and timing of their remarks lest they become Beijing's accomplices.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS